I forgot. How expensive is it to do a custom sensor giving all this. It is like how long a price of string is. If it is just using present designs and technologies you are familiar with regularly producing, not too much. The more difficults unknowns you have, the longer it could take. One it's going to be longer and more expensive. Two, if you can't figure it out its going to take longer and more expense. That expense and time to figure it out could be short, it could be long.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

There are many examples in the stills world of cameras using the same sensor base and yet having totally different "looks" and "colour science" attributed to them. For many years Panasonic and Olympus in the MFT cameras have been using similar sensors. The current rumour is that both are using Sony sensors. Which is interesting considering Panasonic have a history of doing their own sensors and Sony don't make an MFT camera.

Even with the same sensors, end users endlessly debate the look of their respective brand cameras, because each manufacturer tailors their look recipe based on the same basic ingredients.

To designa . sensor from scratch costs many millions, maybe tens of millions. That's a lot of cash to ROI on what are still pretty niche cameras. These aren't GoPros that are in every retail store you can find and the volume is still low in the scheme of things.

How many Alexa's do you think are in the wild ? Maybe 5000 ? 10 000 ? Think about taking a 20 million sensor development bill and then trying to work out how to return those costs, especially when the internet uneducated are used to three year product cycles for the newer better sensor tech.

John Brawley wrote:There's a gazillion ways to customise a "stock" sensor.

Exactly, since they're quite a bit more complicated than the armchair architects like to pretend.

Even with the same sensors, end users endlessly debate the look of their respective brand cameras, because each manufacturer tailors their look recipe based on the same basic ingredients.

True, and that's even without accounting for customizations like the CFA, which doesn't even necessarily involve customizing the electronic components.

To designa . sensor from scratch costs many millions, maybe tens of millions. That's a lot of cash to ROI on what are still pretty niche cameras. These aren't GoPros that are in every retail store you can find and the volume is still low in the scheme of things.

Never mind the manufactring part... which can easily run into the billions.

Another part that armchair architects don't understand is Moore's Surprisingly Long-Lived Observation that a bunch of simpletons coined into a law, which is that transistor density was doubling every 18 months. That translated to either a major reduction in size and therefore manufacturing volume or a lot more transistors at the same chip size, leading to a huge increase in computing power.

Large sensors are working exactly against the economies of scale. They're large enough to have relatively small yields on wafer, their artifact sizes are quite large (we want big photosites!), and they're STILL complex to manufacture, especially if you're looking at both back-side illumination AND stacked chips -- both of those are manufacturing nightmares. Sony's A9 has a stacked chip sensor, but the A7Riii does not. There's a reason... more complexity = more cost + lower yields, and lower yields add cost.

How many Alexa's do you think are in the wild ? Maybe 5000 ? 10 000 ? Think about taking a 20 million sensor development bill and then trying to work out how to return those costs, especially when the internet uneducated are used to three year product cycles for the newer better sensor tech.

What I find the most amusing is the camera envy. BMD customers have such sweet cameras at such low prices that it's simply ridiculous; BMD could IMO compete effectively at $12,000 for an UM Pro, for example. Yet the customers see a $95,000 full-frame Alexa and suddenly they want a full-frame camera for $5K, which is of course silly; the quality of the 4.6K that has gotten so many raves AND Netflix approval didn't suddenly decrease, and neither did the color science.

a full frame camera for film is a bit of a pie in the sky wish... especially when shooting Indie. it causes a lot of additional issues with focus etc... I feel like the size of the 4.6k is just about perfect for cinema/narrative television. its ever so slightly larger than s35 so you get a little more shallow than you normally would at a deeper stop, but your still not in full frame everything is a blur when you have to run wide open. The color science is second only maybe to Arri, same with dynamic range... but its still winning in resolution. I even found that in preserved detail it is not too dissimilar with the 8k from RED and certainly out details the 5k and 6k they offer. Ideally it would be nice if BMD continue to just perfect this sensor and the processing behind it. I would even be happy if they didn't change anything about the body but beefed up the processing and maybe edge out every bit of the dynamic range this sensor has to offer... a faster bus speed to get prores at 60fps ( this may just be a limitation of the cards that are on the market though ).

Anywho im not complaining about what the camera offers at the moment. We no longer rent Alexa or Red on anything... its all 4.6k on all of our cinematic jobs (90 percent of what we do) and DSLR for little interviews. BMD really created an awesome camera with the 4.6k.

However, read here. From day one of the first sample lit stills I saw from the 4.6k, I politely questioned them.

Go PRO's, Olympus etc etc etc, have use Sony sensors regularly. The reason people see differences is the artificial look baked into the image, obscuring the real look. Looking at raw and set mild grades, one can still see the difference between different sensors. All is FACT, not imaginary, unless one is blind, and may imagine differences don't exist.

I imagine you can grade Arri and 4.6k similarly, but that there are still differences if you do not do so that show up some stuff on the 4.6k.

It wasn't the best from the moment it came out, and is a grade enough for cheaper cameras. Frankly, all reasonable cameras should have an image as good as an Arri these days, and the latest Sony 1 inch sensors used in some of their low end camcorders could probably be setup to do better again.

Pays to be into the actual design and business sides, of the industry, from arm chair or not, rather than not to be able to work out the obviouse from an armchair.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

Wayne Steven wrote:Go PRO's, Olympus etc etc etc, have use Sony sensors regularly. The reason people see differences is the artificial look baked into the image, obscuring the real look. Looking at raw and set mild grades, one can still see the difference between different sensors. All is FACT, not imaginary, unless one is blind, and may imagine differences don't exist.

No one is disputing that... in fact, quite the opposite, John explained a few reasons for the differences.

There's a significant amount of image processing that goes on even for raw capture, even though that image processing doesn't include de-Bayering.

a full frame camera for film is a bit of a pie in the sky wish... especially when shooting Indie. it causes a lot of additional issues with focus etc... I feel like the size of the 4.6k is just about perfect for cinema/narrative television. its ever so slightly larger than s35 so you get a little more shallow than you normally would at a deeper stop, but your still not in full frame everything is a blur when you have to run wide open. The color science is second only maybe to Arri, same with dynamic range... but its still winning in resolution. I even found that in preserved detail it is not too dissimilar with the 8k from RED and certainly out details the 5k and 6k they offer. Ideally it would be nice if BMD continue to just perfect this sensor and the processing behind it. I would even be happy if they didn't change anything about the body but beefed up the processing and maybe edge out every bit of the dynamic range this sensor has to offer... a faster bus speed to get prores at 60fps ( this may just be a limitation of the cards that are on the market though ).

Anywho im not complaining about what the camera offers at the moment. We no longer rent Alexa or Red on anything... its all 4.6k on all of our cinematic jobs (90 percent of what we do) and DSLR for little interviews. BMD really created an awesome camera with the 4.6k.

However, read here. From day one of the first sample lit stills I saw from the 4.6k, I politely questioned them.

In what way ?

Wayne Steven wrote:Go PRO's, Olympus etc etc etc, have use Sony sensors regularly. The reason people see differences is the artificial look baked into the image, obscuring the real look. Looking at raw and set mild grades, one can still see the difference between different sensors. All is FACT, not imaginary, unless one is blind, and may imagine differences don't exist.

I dodn't think you're making much of a point.

RAW doesn't mean uncooked. In this case there are still choices each manufacture makes in generating that image in both the fundamental design of the sensor, it's implementation of different features, how the CFA is designed and then on top of that choices about how to matrix the colour. Many of these are subjective.

Wayne Steven wrote:I imagine you can grade Arri and 4.6k similarly, but that there are still differences if you do not do so that show up some stuff on the 4.6k.

Resolution is the easiest and most obvious. The Ursa is always sharper by a lot.

Wayne Steven wrote:It wasn't the best from the moment it came out, and is a grade enough for cheaper cameras. Frankly, all reasonable cameras should have an image as good as an Arri these days, and the latest Sony 1 inch sensors used in some of their low end camcorders could probably be setup to do better again.

And yet Arri are still a benchmark everyone wants to compare to.

You say silly non sensical things like. "should have an image as good as an Arri". Clearly this isn't what happens. So what are you saying really ?

Wayne Steven wrote:Pays to be into the actual design and business sides, of the industry, from arm chair or not, rather than not to be able to work out the obviouse from an armchair.

You like blowing your own trumpet but rarely seem to be able to string an understandable or logical sentence together. It feels a lot like you're speaking through google translate.

However, read here. From day one of the first sample lit stills I saw from the 4.6k, I politely questioned them.

In what way ?

Wayne Steven wrote:Go PRO's, Olympus etc etc etc, have use Sony sensors regularly. The reason people see differences is the artificial look baked into the image, obscuring the real look. Looking at raw and set mild grades, one can still see the difference between different sensors. All is FACT, not imaginary, unless one is blind, and may imagine differences don't exist.

I dodn't think you're making much of a point.

RAW doesn't mean uncooked. In this case there are still choices each manufacture makes in generating that image in both the fundamental design of the sensor, it's implementation of different features, how the CFA is designed and then on top of that choices about how to matrix the colour. Many of these are subjective.

Highlight and skin tone roll off exaggerations.

Plus, I should note in general to people about comparisons to Arri cameras. Just because a camera matches or nudges past a Arri, duesntesn it outclasses an Arri. Many years ago.I.yhink it was Arri who was exploring ways to better define the missing colors in a Bayer sevsur pattern, by overlap an article quoted. The response curves of RGB overlap, so part of the response at a pixel.is related to the overlap with.the other primary curves. Smart guys, and they.obvipusly would have designed their color masks and optical low pass filters to take advantage of this. Plus, I imagine they would Taylor their sensors response curves for tonality and highlight tool off. Smart guys, get as much of the desired shape in sensors before post. Now, you come along with an extra stop of latitude, you still have to push around to just match the Arii raw. Si, did that stop matter. But for documentary run and gun, give the extra stop, I'm not trying to film some blockbuster special effects ladden feature and it's not 16.5 stops yet. Once you get to a natural 16.5 stops then be more choosy. But even 14+ stops is nice for documentary. Now, that's technology, not just the final stops etc, but what you did with them. However, this is the big trap. All these things can be modelled by numbers and shown roughly as specifications. So people can't say you can can't tell what a sensor will be like from specifications, you just need enough and to understand enough. Going back to the skin tone roll off in the 4.6k and the mp, that is the sort of thing you want to know is a specification.

So my point about raw and baked. You are right in a way, but raw doesn't really mean that their. The point is that people mistakenly believe you can't see differences between sensors, believe that baked grading in cameras are real hardware differences and you can't tell differences from specifications, all of which is wrong.

Wayne Steven wrote:It wasn't the best from the moment it came out, and is a grade enough for cheaper cameras. Frankly, all reasonable cameras should have an image as good as an Arri these days, and the latest Sony 1 inch sensors used in some of their low end camcorders could probably be setup to do better again.

And yet Arri are still a benchmark everyone wants to compare to.

You say silly non sensical things like. "should have an image as good as an Arri". Clearly this isn't what happens. So what are you saying really ?

Wayne Steven wrote:Pays to be into the actual design and business sides, of the industry, from arm chair or not, rather than not to be able to work out the obviouse from an armchair.

You like blowing your own trumpet but rarely seem to be able to string an understandable or logical sentence together. It feels a lot like you're speaking through google translate.

JB

There you go again. I was looking forwards to having a conversation, to be nice, even though I clearly have other drastic priorities at the moment. But you have to launch into nonsense again. It wouldn't be so bad if you were right, at least it would be a positive.

I suggest you take a chill pill, and reread things, instead of trying to look good putting me down. Your attacks don't make sense, and launch against obviouse logical and understandable sentences. I've had enough of the straining out reality to affirm some unreality in forums with fans with no deep understanding of design and instead group think which affirms whatever status quo they support. If you listen, along with others, life will be a better place.

I have more full confidence in Grant to find a way that delivers where the 4.6 is compared to Sony technology and Red technogy. If you listen to those that tell you the emporer has glorious cloths as you loose them, you end up without them. An emptying glass is truely half full (now that is something a bit cryptic).

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

Hey guys don’t be to hard on Wayne, it seems he may be going thru some type of health problem, I pray for you if that’s the case. Wayne, your earlier post ..about the “armchair” seemed a bit presumptuous toward Rakesh. I’m guessing that’s one of the reasons why John responded to you the way he did. Regardless I value your opinions here..so let’s move pass this..and continue to respectfully engage in dialogue that build our community. Even when we don’t agree with someone, there’s always something new we can learn.

Robert Niessner wrote:Wayne, to be honest I have no clue what you want to tell us. I've read all your posts but your topics are meandering around so much it's like watching an out of focus movie with distorted sound.

Or Dark City, which means you are out of focus (watch the editing of the film). If you think you have nothing to learn, no tolerance, you will maybe succeed.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

What I wrote wasn't meant disrespectful. I tried to express that it was confusing for me and I am having a hard time following what Wayne is trying to tell us here. Earlier posts of him have been much easier to read and understand, now grammar and structure seem so strangely shifted.

Thanks Donnell. Just read your post I'm against the notion of these put downs. The truth is, if you can't tell something from an armchair you are really the one who is not good enough. But most all good things here come from those who do a lot of sitting down elbow deep beneath the dark surface, and a lot of lifting weights with the noggin, to give to those who use what was created. It is very much like people who watch films thinking they know about production, the two are very different, and unless you understand what and how you see, you are not even going to make a good director. (Yes, that was a go at directors

I don't create sensor base technologies for obvious reasons, because I'm not a fool. I know it requires a deeper understanding to do these things past the superficial (use existing sensors or merely new layouts of existing sensors and new technology). I may have a few design ideas for new ways to do a sensor, but how would I know if they are any good (some are expected too but new competing technology makes them irrelevant) because I don't know enough. So I put that on the back burner, or too late pile, until I meet someone who can prove overwize, or I can myself. But others don't know their limits.

A little trumpet doesn't mean a big trumpet, just a little sound escaping.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

Robert, hanging around too many Eurasians has shortened my grammar a bit, and I was going to say at times it is hard to keep tight, as these things can require keeping track of dozens of concepts and thread memories in mind. This makes it hard to express a full picture accurately at times. Normally it is load up the full picture of relevant information and spit it out like the short cuts of Dark City. Where there normal is one cut there are many. Where normally there is one layer and relationship in a sentence, now there are many. Otherwise writing that out would be far longer in length, and my brain doesn't waste like that. But I used to virtually only read technical works, and engineering and scientific periodicals for a period of time. So you might recognise some of the style from there, when I'm keeping it together.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

They are selling their pixel technology. But there are a heaps of technologies to do pixels. The issue is how they affect performance. One is to continuously read the values, rather than having a second "pixel" but each operation has noise. But there are pixel reset technology's as the pixel becomes saturated. So I wonder if they could use such schemes effectively?

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

a full frame camera for film is a bit of a pie in the sky wish... especially when shooting Indie. it causes a lot of additional issues with focus etc... I feel like the size of the 4.6k is just about perfect for cinema/narrative television. its ever so slightly larger than s35 so you get a little more shallow than you normally would at a deeper stop, but your still not in full frame everything is a blur when you have to run wide open. The color science is second only maybe to Arri, same with dynamic range... but its still winning in resolution. I even found that in preserved detail it is not too dissimilar with the 8k from RED and certainly out details the 5k and 6k they offer. Ideally it would be nice if BMD continue to just perfect this sensor and the processing behind it. I would even be happy if they didn't change anything about the body but beefed up the processing and maybe edge out every bit of the dynamic range this sensor has to offer... a faster bus speed to get prores at 60fps ( this may just be a limitation of the cards that are on the market though ).

Anywho im not complaining about what the camera offers at the moment. We no longer rent Alexa or Red on anything... its all 4.6k on all of our cinematic jobs (90 percent of what we do) and DSLR for little interviews. BMD really created an awesome camera with the 4.6k.

Hi Ryan,

Please try to understand, no one is complaining about the existing UM 4.6. Agreed, it's just about perfect camera for cinema/ narrative television. There's no doubt about that.

When I started this thread, I was curious about only one thing. Is BMD thinking of any full-frame camera or not? I never talked about discontinuing the S-35 format. That would be rather foolish. Even Arri is not discontinuing their other cameras. Red has Helium 8K and VV, but it also has retained their S-35 cameras.

My point was, full-frame is fast emerging as a serious cinema format. Blame it on 5D if you want, but it's true. And what camera is more Indie than a 5D or a A7S? Certainly the full-frame format has created some impression all over the world and that made the biggies like Arri and Red think differently. If you look at Arri specially, the change in thinking is quite clear. Arri is a camera which is traditional, has always retained the 4:3 aspect ratio in 35 mm Academic gate (and the 16 mm Academic gate) through all their cameras right from the birth of celluloid. The s-35 format is a variation of that and certainly became the gold standard in cinema parlance. When we talk about PL mount, we again are talking about Arri, mind you. Red came out with their own mount, remember? That didn't last. BMD never thought of having their own mount. It was somewhat mandatory that cinema cameras would be having PL mount, and PL mount only. That is Arri.

Now look at your BMD camera. Which mount do you own? PL? EF? If you are owning a EF mount BMD UM, my question is, how come you are using a still lens mount on your camera? EF is basically Canon mount and definitely it has been derived from their still cameras. I personally own one BM, one Sony, one Canon and one Red camera for my own projects and also for hiring out. All my lenses are EF, all my cameras excepting the Sony are EF mount. With Sony, I use a Metabones converter.

My next question is about Cine glasses. Most of the lens manufacturers are now turning towards full-frame Cine glasses. Why is that? So that your investment on lenses are future proof. So what is the future?

Netflix or not, Arri has somehow sensed the future in all probability. So now they have a new full-format cine camera, and to go with that they have announced full-frame glasses too. They are not making their Ultra Primes and Master Primes redundant though. They'll exist, side by side, in all probabilty. Because in the days of celluloid 16 mm existed alongside 35 mm, no one complained about that.

So there was my simple query. Is BMD thinking about any full-format cine camera? Knowing BMD, they are unlikely to stop at UM 4.6, will their next camera be a full-frame one?

Krishna Pada wrote:Great! That was 70 mm actually, not 35mm. So having full-frame option is not to be discarded. Right?

No one is suggesting that it be discarded, but the obsession with it is completely silly and pointless.

Not because Vista Vision and 135 formats don't have their uses, but because most of the dSLR video users just used them to make their backgrounds more out of focus rather than improve the quality of their work.

Larger formats are nice, but hardly necessary. Just look at Blade Runner 2049. Roger Deakins and Denis Villeneuve selected Alexas for that -- not Alexa 65, even though they had that option (and did test it, according to Deakins).

The "shallow depth of field = more cinematic" crowd is very misguided. There is no such formula. It's just as pointless as the Fool of Thirds... dogmatically adhering to such silliness leads to generic images that look like all the other Fool of Thirds cultists' and stifles art.

Fuji's medium format camera that's actually close in size to Vista Vision costs $6500, and can only do stills and HD video. Think about it... it's not a trivial engineering challenge, and while I think that BMD COULD pull it off engineering wise, I do not think that BMD could justify it from a business point of view right now, given the price points that it's targeting. Right now, a full frame BMD camera would most likely be out of the price range of BMD's customer base.

Will that always be the case? Probably not. But it will never change the fact that the best camera is the one you already have, not the one you can't afford. If you can't make great content with an UMP or UM 4.6K, then you won't be able to make great content with a Monstro VV or Alexa 65 either.

Whether or not it’s a choice to own or rent ‘full-frame’ equipment for any producer or cinematographer is an individual choice determined by many factors. But with this move by ARRI Alexa LF, it’s possible that full-frame will be a necessary option for camera manufacturers to make available so they don’t surrender that portion of the market.

I’m totally sold on the 4.6K sensors which may have a five year lifespan, but I was describing very early in the thread, the two methods BMD might address this need: make a 6K version of the 4.6K 5.5 micron technology which might be a shorter term solution but with some significant cost to BMD and the consumer or redesign their sensor from the ground up with a 8 micron photosite with improved performance specs that might have another five year or longer lifespan but presents a very large risk and investment to BMD. The latter approach might require partnerships and that’s not something I think BMD would want to do... yet.

Rakesh Malik wrote:No one is suggesting that it be discarded, but the obsession with it is completely silly and pointless.

Why do you think it is an obsession? I think a good story-teller will choose his camera on the content. Some films like Ben Hur and Star Wars do require the 70 mm look.

Rakesh Malik wrote:Not because Vista Vision and 135 formats don't have their uses, but because most of the dSLR video users just used them to make their backgrounds more out of focus rather than improve the quality of their work.

Aah! Ok. But I have seen plenty of cinematographers using s-35 format talking about which lenses to use, which lens will give a creamy background, which lens will give a pleasant bokeh, why cinemascope image is outstanding, blah blah blah... How about that? In cinema, it's the image which stares at your face. I find nothing wrong in these. And yes, I agree most of the DSLR video users need to improve the quality of their work. Same is true about most of the S35 video users.

Rakesh Malik wrote:Larger formats are nice, but hardly necessary. Just look at Blade Runner 2049. Roger Deakins and Denis Villeneuve selected Alexas for that -- not Alexa 65, even though they had that option (and did test it, according to Deakins).

This necessity depends on the subject and narrative. Some extra-ordinary films demanded 70 mm filming. Even during that time, some films were deliberately shot in 16 mm for stylistic reasons

Rakesh Malik wrote:The "shallow depth of field = more cinematic" crowd is very misguided. There is no such formula. It's just as pointless as the Fool of Thirds... dogmatically adhering to such silliness leads to generic images that look like all the other Fool of Thirds cultists' and stifles art.

I see. Let's talk about art then. Let's look at some paintings from the renaissance era. We tend to see that the "subject" tends to come out from the background. So, the background of a portrait is always blurred. In other words, the "shallow depth of field" applied to visual art too. Rakesh, tell me honestly, don't you separate your characters from the background in a talkie scene, while you are shooting? Don't you try and cut the lights on the background wall? Don't you try that again in post? Every cinematographer does. And why do they do it? Because they want the characters to stand out from the background. In FF you can separate the characters more easily. If you don't want to do it, it's your take. Yes, there is no such formula as I have explained earlier. People choose things as per the demand of the narrative. There's no strict rule of thirds too. That's a western composition theory. Oriental visual art form relied on central composition -- you can see that from the Mughal paintings to Kurosawa's films.

Fuji's medium format camera that's actually close in size to Vista Vision costs $6500, and can only do stills and HD video. Think about it... it's not a trivial engineering challenge, and while I think that BMD COULD pull it off engineering wise, I do not think that BMD could justify it from a business point of view right now, given the price points that it's targeting. Right now, a full frame BMD camera would most likely be out of the price range of BMD's customer base.

BMD has always surprised us. I am waiting for one more surprise. That's about all

Rakesh Malik wrote:But it will never change the fact that the best camera is the one you already have, not the one you can't afford.

I beg to differ. The camera I own is not the best camera. The camera I aspire for, is the best.

Rakesh Malik wrote:If you can't make great content with an UMP or UM 4.6K, then you won't be able to make great content with a Monstro VV or Alexa 65 either.

Time for the 4.6k performance to come down to lower models, and for a new sensor up the top end. I think we will see that this year. The newer 2015 (or was that 2013) 14 stop 4.6k version of the micro studio sensor would have been good for a pocket or broadcast, but now things have moved on into the fairchild's territory.

So, it is time for a sensor upgrade because helium territory is where it's at to aim at, and I think we will soon see better than helium.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

Krishna Pada wrote:Why do you think it is an obsession? I think a good story-teller will choose his camera on the content. Some films like Ben Hur and Star Wars do require the 70 mm look.

Just look around.

Aah! Ok. But I have seen plenty of cinematographers using s-35 format talking about which lenses to use, which lens will give a creamy background, which lens will give a pleasant bokeh, why cinemascope image is outstanding, blah blah blah... How about that? In cinema, it's the image which stares at your face. I find nothing wrong in these. And yes, I agree most of the DSLR video users need to improve the quality of their work. Same is true about most of the S35 video users.

Yet instead they're mostly looking for new cameras...

Rakesh, tell me honestly, don't you separate your characters from the background in a talkie scene, while you are shooting?

Of course... but blurring the background isn't the only way to do that. There are lots of other ways involving composition and lighting.

There's no strict rule of thirds too. That's a western composition theory. Oriental visual art form relied on central composition -- you can see that from the Mughal paintings to Kurosawa's films.

The rule of thirds isn't a theory. It's a simple hack that someone used to try to get beginners to stop plopping the subject in the center of the frame, and it's stymied the development of visual arts ever since. It's by far the most useless and limiting tool in a visual artist's toolbox, yet it's the only tool that a great many wannabe visual artists dogmatically adhere to because the rest of them require some thought to use.

I beg to differ. The camera I own is not the best camera. The camera I aspire for, is the best.

You're wrong. There's a little thing called "reality" that proves it, since you're not using the camera that you don't have.

Or, as the mountaineers are so fond of saying, "Pictures or it didn't happen."

In case you've forgotten, content is king, not gear. So the best camera is the one you have, because that's the camera that will allow you to create content.

Agreed. You can make great content with DSLRs and iphones too.

True. They're limiting and in light of the fact that dedicated cinema cameras are available for comparable prices it's just extra work to prove a point that doesn't need proving. Most of the time, it's just a gimmick, putting gear ahead of what matters.

On the mount side of my 4.6k I have Ef mount. One of the main reasons is I am a photographer as well as a director so it's very easy on some of our smaller jobs to use all my Tamron G2 glass with Zeiss lens gears and can put them to use just as I do when we have PL glass on set... Though lots of options out there in the EF cinema glass world now. To better answer your question though. There is an optical benefit to shooting full frame glass on a smaller sensor. Your shooting at the sharpest part of the lens where there are less problems in general. I also was an early adopter of the 4.6k before there was the option to get the interchangeable mount. When I owned Red gear we always had both options.

As of late though we have been renting more cameras with ef mount and using still lenses with adapted focus rings. I really gotta hand it to Zeiss with their new lens gears. Our typical setup has been 2-3 4.6ks or 4.6k pros. One living on steady cam and the others for handheld and sticks.

We started moving this direction after pretty extensived testing against the alexa mini, red 6k and 8k. Since our tests we have stopped shooting Red and Arri. Everything from our company has been 4.6k for the past 2 years and never had an agency or record label have a complaint.

So I guess what I'm getting at is I think the format is a really solid choice where I think BMD can focus on pulling the full dynamic range out of the sensor. Fine tuning the color science for the sensor even more and maybe some body refinements to the camera. This also allows for a better user experience while giving some very affordable pricing by not having to reinvent the wheel.

Let's say they did go the route of full frame. It would be great to get something that did 6k but downsampled that to 4k prores. And somewhere in that 6k range would give us something like 4.6k super35 mode so that we are still super sampled for 4k. But keeping the pixels larger like that could assist in low light a bit. I do have some great medium format glass though... If they wanna go 65mm ha

all i think i want it a better build ( better xlr inputs/better audio preamps/sdis that don't blow out...) if 6k is the thing idc im not about the resolution life. id love to be able to do higher frame rates w/o windowing sensor. better highlight roll off would be amazing, improved color science. improved pl mount /ef mount swap (i heard that its a little strange?) form factor can always be improved a little maybe less intrusive top handle/evf situation. full frame is not what i want. if you can make the 1600asa clean that would be dope. fix the fpn **** fully would be great.

Wayne, the 4.6K sensor was announced at NAB 2015 and began to ship near the end of March 2016. I received my UM46K and related gear mid-April 2016 with the Fujinon HA20x7.8B M10 Cine Zoom. Had to wait awhile until the SLR Magic APO 50mm was in my hands.

Savannah Miller wrote:The biggest video market in the world these days is YouTube, and if they could make the ultimate YouTube camera that would sell at ridiculously high volumes that might be a good avenue to give them the capital necessary to develop convenience features such as auto exposure, autofocus, stabilizaton, etc. that they can implement into their higher line of cameras too.

Most of that market will not buy into BM cameras until they have those convenience features.

The vast majority of YouTubers that are successfully using YouTube to support themselves don’t appear to have the least concern with high quality cinema cameras or broadcast cameras but can appreciate all the ease of use and automation that can be available from the big camera manufacturers that offer everything except a compelling codec. For their success relies more on their charisma or personal beauty or ‘content’ than sublime visuals. And for YouTube (Alphabet) itself, it’s only true concern is that the ‘artist’ draws a crowd of potential ad clicks.

Yes, true a mobile phone may be the only camera they need, but I’m glad there are people here who have their sights set higher than that even if that means they’re the equivalent of Neanderthals in their thinking. History has shown that Neanderthals are never appreciated in their day, but give it a few thousand years and they’re eventually appreciated. Literature and music can go through the cycle where the most popular content creators in their day are quickly forgotten once they die and their struggling and misunderstood contemporaries that didn’t ‘get with the program’ after some decades finally are appreciated and loved for their art and their struggles.

More than ever YouTube photographers and filmmakers like Peter Mckinnon, Travel Feels, etc. are creating a new excitement for video and cameras. I feel like moreso now than ever, Sony, Panasonic, are really selling huge volumes of cameras to people due to the increase of people wanting to pursue filmmaking on YouTube. Casey Neistat played a huge part in people wanting to become filmmakers. And as a result, people will buy into a camera if they can be convinced it's better than what they're currently using, but if it doesn't have convenience features, then it will feel like a step backwards.

And all the spoiled kids that have no idea how to shoot video but get their parents to buy them the best cameras would want these features too, as it would be pretty difficult for a kid with no idea how cameras work to pick up a BMCC and even get a remotely good image.

rick.lang wrote:Wayne, the 4.6K sensor was announced at NAB 2015 and began to ship near the end of March 2016. I received my UM46K and related gear mid-April 2016 with the Fujinon HA20x7.8B M10 Cine Zoom. Had to wait awhile until the SLR Magic APO 50mm was in my hands.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, it's 2014/2015 technology, and in technology the next step should be available. It's the issues they had which produced the very regrettable delays.

Now, if Sony can use sub technologies on cameras in 10's of thousands and in hundreds, so can BM. But the use of the old Aptina on the broadcast cameta is a worry. If they had 1 inch from their own technology, why not use it. So, if a new low end sensor is coming, it might be bigger, or outside sourced.

As for the high end, a new competitor to dragon/helium is needed. A step above from a revision of the 4.6k sensor technology might get it there. I'm not saying it has to be as good as Red's next sensor (I suspect will be coming this year) but for the price next level down is good.

The Mini 4k and pocket/micro are all good targets for upgrades.

I think the that one non premium mini model. The the production, broadcast and future cinema camera step (up to 6k maybe 8k). To keep the market alive and healthy for sales. Really, the broadcast, production and cinema cameras should be rolled into one unit, to give three or four portable use cameras over all.

We will see. Sigma has patented a three color video sensor. That is probably going to be worth buying against any BM camera if it hits the market right. I certainly would prefer that for the price. This means only the pocketable cameras might be worth it. It might only have the performance of a mini 4k, but with three color, that's great. It's entirely possible it can reach 16 stops lattitude in HDR video, which is not really desirable in cinema use. As you increase HDR the picture quality drops off. So, it's not a high end solution to rely on. Red only recommends using 2 extra stops, which is in their system, and stuff all. There are high quality systems that can take you over 27 or 30 stops, but I have not heard of one on a cinema sensor pixel. Different pixel technologies work in different ways for different filming. So, you see these high HDR technologies not turn up on cinema cameras. Maybe they produce a lit of noise or other effects.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

I said "Video sensor" not "still sensors". Those sensors were aimed at the still market. A number of years ago they declared they were going to try mobile and video sensors aswell. So, those low resolution HTC's might have used them. I am yet to see a proper video sensor from them.

The issue is, unless you have access to the Micron/Aptina patents for low energy high pixel rate technology, or an alternative that produces good pictures, you have issues with heating and power consumption. Look at the Red one. Higher speed, but I didn't like the picture.

There are a lot of good anti noise and low light technologies these days. If Sigma can incorporate these, it would be great. Even if they partnered with Omnivision to share technology to get higher speed, it would likely be better. Please note, I otherwise am not saying Omnivision sensors are great. Its just a matter of each getting better technology pool to make better sensors. But maybe Sigma has had such a deal already, and have to use certain technology. The actual fab ricess itself is a big factor in low heat high pixel rate.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

Savannah Miller wrote:Anyone else feel like 2017 was a great year for cameras? The Ursa Mini Pro fixed many of the complaints that people had with the original 4.6k and they really delivered. C200 shocked everyone by offering internal raw with the c700 sensor. The new Kinefinity Terra 4K has largely fixed the issues they've had with their previous cameras as well. Amazing form factor, minimal rolling shutter, very good low light sensitivity, reduced chromatic aberration issues. This is easily the best camera Kinefinity has ever put out but it's kinda sad because their 6K terra is their top-of-the-line camera yet this one is much better.

Well the Terra 4K is newer than the Terra 6K, so no surprise it might be a little better in some ways.

But now Kinefinity has the MAVO series which is above the Terra 6K

I think 2017 is also special for the Panasonic GH5S, which showed Micro Four Thirds can be top dog for lowlight performance in a camera! (for now)

I also love that the Panasonic GH5S was the first stills camera to implement a timecode input. Although GH5S wasn't the first MFT camera with TC! That was the BMD Micro Cinema Camera.

Savannah Miller wrote:I The new show Altered Carbon for Netflix was just 5K Arriraw and they were shooting 7TB a day which cost them tons of money in both storage and overtime transfering footage. 6K and beyond would be a nightmare.

Tons of money? With prices like 100 bucks for 4 TB these days.Seriously?

I guess the craft service on set was 50 times more than they spend on drives. And no transferring that material is not a big deal at 150mb/sec. Even I can handle that on set, and I don't have a Netflix budget. All you need is a laptop, a fast card reader and 2 or 3 Thunderbolt HD docks, to write the material simultaneously. Once you start the transfer, you don't even have to babysit it, checksum says it all.It transfers while I shoot the next scene, no overtime here.

My biggest disappointment With the 4K Pocket is its lack of a decent continuous focus system. Having loss most the use of my left hand to a stroke, it is really hard to use this camera in a run and gun shoot. I love a lot of the other feature, but the 4K pocket lack of this feature makes my Sonys my primary Cameras on shoots.

With the Pocket 6K announcement and Blackmagic's dedication to 8K with the HyperDeck Extreme 8K and Constellation 8K, it sure looks likely that an 8K is in their cards. Whether Full Frame is decided on is anybody's guess, but since BMD is advertising the shallow depth of field benefit of the Pocket 6K sensor size over the 4K they could do the same while marketing Full Frame.

I can attest that the 4K image from the oversampled 6K Full Frame sensor of the Nikon Z6 is especially stunning, even more so than the oversampled 6K from the APS-C sized Sony a6500.

I'm all for a Blackmagic Full Frame Cinema Camera : ) Haven't had a chance to work with the $12K Kinefinity Mavo LF or $54K RED Monstro VV yet but would love to! We'll see what happens with the Z Cam E2-F8 when it hits the shelves for $6K.

I had thought BMD might go 6K with the URSA Mini in a nearly ‘full frame’ sensor. They may still do that at NAB 2020, but only a matter of time until they launch 8K. They could do it with the sensor design in the BMPCC6K but that 8K would only get them to a 30.8mm wide sensor!

Thanks for the kinds thoughts, I was just trying to say that Continuous focus would be a plus in the BMD Cameras, some people here are saying Cinema Cameras should not have the option, but it would help many of us. And now more than ever as 6K focus is hard to nail and critical to the image.

They really should make the Pockets and future micros, into hybrid cameras with full pro still features. A lot more could be sold, and a lot of serious cabwra places might stock it.

Anyway, checkout the micro like Sigma lmount full frame camera with cinema features Dave. If only it was 16 stops and 4kp50/60, and 50/60 at 2.41:1 wide, I would have loved to buy one. Maybe an update might improve one of these areas a bit. We are still waiting for a foveon based big brother to come.

Thus is a rough coming 12 months, 20 stop organic Panasonic sensor cameras, foveon maybe video version sensored camera, and Siny will have to maybe stop holding back a bit.

To put things into perspective, there is a micro 4/3rds camera that goes on sale with lens I think at $299. I think it might be around 6k wide. That's close to the Sigma in what it could be made to do if yi chose to through firmware and external recording.

aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anythingbTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion acceptedcOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

Christopher Dobey wrote:Well we now have a 5K 12-bit RAW video Full Frame DSLR from Canon: 1D X mk III

I'd love to see a Full Frame offering from Blackmagic.

This looks amazing. I think back on my Canon 7D and 5D Mark II days and this is the dream camera of that era. BUT... Today, I realize that I wouldn't spend $6500 on a video camera that looks like a DSLR. When you spend that kind of money you want to look professional. I think this will be the problem for Canon, or maybe it isn't since it's marketed as a stills camera with video. Sure, photographers now have great video codecs and can probably just shoot video an pluck frames for photos. However, for someone that is focused on video, this camera doesn't command the same respect that a RED would or even a Ursa Mini Pro... Even if the image is as good (I'm sure it is) or better, because it looks like a DSLR.

A FF camera from BM would be cool, but I don't know how much value that adds to the consumer. It depends on how you look at it. More bokeh or harder to focus? 50mm = 50mm or less lens options? Does sensor size have an effect on low light (dual iso) technologies? I don't know.

I've been shooting M43 so long now I don't even think about FF anymore.

I'll get back to you on my Full Frame thoughts after 1917, but for the most part I've loved a lot of the movies and television I've seen shot with the ARRI LF sensor. So I'm currently in favor of Large Format equivalent to VistaVision, but don't think it's a necessity. It ultimately doesn't make a difference to the clients or audiences. They're not hiring you because of not having a Full Frame camera.

"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)